Is rewriting of data [to avoid data rot] quicker on SAS-3 drive than on SATA III?

[Thy Grand Voidinesss]

Long story short:
I need to buy another huge [20 / 22 TB] archive drive for keeping data-stamped backups of all of my data, with intention of [also] keeping it offline when not creating new copies on it [just like I do with the already possessed ones]. But my main concern is preventing data fade - which I intend to do achieve with rewriting of all archive drives using freeware DiskFresh. But unfortunately that will be extremely time consuming thus disrupting for my day-to-day operations

And so, putting many other aspects aside *, the big question is:
if instead of 7200 RPM HDD using SATA III [6 Gbit/s] connection I would spend more money and bought the very same model but with SAS-3 [12 Gbit/s] controller - would then refreshing process of the same amount / type of data be quicker [in perfect conditions] by theoretically 100%? Aside from interface, the data sheet from manufacturer shows the same parameters for them, with only minuscule differences in terms of noise or power usage between them


* Or maybe, as one of my two main concerns is amount of days needed to rewrite such amount of data, I would be better off using SATA III- but SSD instead of SAS-3 HDD? Because this type of storage device [as I have read] do not have to rewrite every bit at least once a year, but merely needs to be powered on for something like a quarter of hour every quarter of year? Thus, putting aside my second main concern [which is the vast price difference], SSD would execute relatively instant refreshing when compared to an HDD- but at a cost of having greater risk of total lost of data due to an impeccably sensing timing power surge [as an HDD would loose only a tiny amount of data when being online during such event]?

[And yes, I know there are some technical caveats for using SAS devices]

[therube]

Huh, what?

"DiskFresh is a simple yet powerful tool that can refresh your hard disk signal without changing its data by reading and writing each sector and hence making your disk more reliable for storage. It also informs you if there are any damaged/bad sectors so you know the right time to replace your disk. The best part is, unlike other tools it does all this when Windows is running and it does not interfere with the speed of your work at all."
https://www.puransoftware.com/DiskFresh.html


A 10 year old tool, from Puran, with no clear explanation of just what it does or what it is supposed to do?
And you're betting your data on that?
.
Circa 2016, Puran Delete Empty Folder (utility).
While I can accept a "check for updates" kind of thing... But no, they "embedded" IE "into" their application.

Puran Delete Empty Folder-IE-Internet Explorer-Crap.png (18.33 KiB) Viewed 10502 times

PS: There is this utility you really ought to know about. It's called Everything. Not sure just where to find it, but I'm sure you will. It too can find empty folders, rather efficiently at that too .

[therube]

(FWIW, & I know nothing of the topic, An Awesome Tool to Prevent Data Corruption.

Backblaze is in the HDD testing business. OK, well maybe they're not , but maybe you can pick up some tidbits of information from their endeavors.

https://www.backblaze.com/blog/

Do note, they some of the drives they use, particular Seagates in particular, have rather horrendous failure rates - but they are cost efficient. So for their purposes, & understanding the risks, they can efficiently use a "poor" drive [where to you or me, that might mean that, well, 'computers dead'].)

[therube]

(Very dated, but it's the first hit that hit), SAS-3 vs SAS-2 HDDs.

[Thy Grand Voidinesss]

Huh, what?

"DiskFresh
[...]
A 10 year old tool, from Puran, with no clear explanation of just what it does or what it is supposed to do?

After digging through search results it seems there are no alternatives and its users are pleased

As for your little rant about

[...]
empty folders
[...]

you ought to know that for some users an empty folder might carry an important info as being such [empty] - while at other times the very same folder might have some content, thus going back and forth multiple times even during as shot time span as a single day

[...]
An Awesome Tool to Prevent Data Corruption.
[...]

It uses PAR2, which I have never heard before

So now I would have to dig in into to establish, if for me it would be as inconvenient as e.g. using hashes



As for SAS vs. SATA speeds info: datasheets of drives I already have, theoretical speeds of interfaces I already know. Thus I am looking rather for comparison tests and / or testimonies od [home] users, that would shed light to my question - which in its core is about rewriting of data using only one drive [holding the data that is to be refreshed]. But as active countermeasures to avert data fade is such niche topic of concern among users [hence existence of just DiskFresh] that it is no wonder I have not yet found any - hence me starting this topic on the forum that gathers users who are at least concern with data mining from owned files and efficient management of them

[therube]

an empty folder might carry an important info as being such [empty] - while at other times the very same folder might have some content

Absolutely.
Related, 0-byte files & Remove Empty Directories.

[Thy Grand Voidinesss]

Despite looking further for relevant information I still do not know for sure if refreshing would be quicker or not on SAS-3 drive; and if this process has any value at all

I guess, if I decide to buy such drive, then months or even years from now I will come back here and report my empirical findings

[therube]

Related, in an unrelated sort of way, Pipe (stdout) vs Disk Write.